• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chicago Teachers Strike 2012

Threw themselves on our mercy. There are lines around the block twice to be a teacher in the Chicago area. There is no shortage of teachers willing to take on the burdensome low-paying jobs that are teachers today. I wonder why that is? Could it be they're not low-paying? Nope. Can't be that. Could it be that it's not burdensome? Nope. Can't we that. Could it be that moms find it a wonderful way to work and raise a family? Nope. Can't be that.

So. Why then?

Me? My "pay" was docked when Governor Quinn raised my state income tax by 67%. 'Course teacher pensions don't count. They're state-tax free. So it doesn't come of their pockets. My "pay" was docked last year when my real estate tax bill went up by 15%, 70% of which goes towards schools.

My next-door neighbor, on the other hand, had his pay docked when he was laid off eight months ago. The guy across the street had his pay docked when he was forced to take a 5% pay cut or get a new job.

There's plenty of people sacrificing each and every day. That the Chicago Teachers' Union finds 16% over four years unacceptable is ludicrous. That they absolutely refuse to implement (in a trial program) evaluations that they themselves had a part in creating is ludicrous. That they absolutely reject merit pay is ludicrous.

But. It's all for the children.

If it had been 10% this year and open up the contract next year, then that wouldn't have been an isue. When a company wants a large sum over a long period that creates a problem because no one can predict the future and the teachers don't want to be stuck.
 
Why? Is this just a stick it to the rich type viewpoint?

I could understanding raising salaries in poor performing areas if those distracts were having difficulties attracting qualified teachers but that clearly isn't the case. I don't see anything that leads me to believe public school teachers in affluent neighborhoods are better, doing less work, etc.

Like virtually every non-public job, pay should be based entirely on performance. A good teacher who consistently sees better results than his peers should expect to be paid better. As it is right now, a teacher will always be paid more than the person hired after him and less then the one before him no matter who does what. Needless to say there is not much incentive to perform.

The reason they should get higher paid is because they have to endure much worse conditions. Its like asking why a Gastroenterolog should be paid more than an average specialist. It is because they have to deal with the digestive system.

Wages should be based on demand, not by what we think they deserve. I don't support the current system, and yes I am in favour of performance wages as well, but not a standard for all schools in America. Each school should be allowed to determine how much they give in performance salary.
 
The compensation for drugs by Medicare and Medicaid is 100's of billions of dollars. The fact that we unlike every other western country don't negotiate our prices costs us tons. Insurance companies fleece Medicare and medicaid all the time. In fact you can't go a couple of years without a massive fraud case to the tune of billions. Financial companies make big money by working with pensions or governments that want to sell bonds in the market. There's also been multiple fraud cases associated with both.

I'm not that interested in silly partisanship.

Companies like Pfizer and Merck are not doing direct business with the government when it comes to Medicare or Medicaid. It's doctors' offices, hospitals, and pharmacies that accept Medicare and Medicaid that are doing business with the government. I suppose the government may do direct business with pharmaceutical companies when it comes to research grants, etc. and, in those cases, these companies should be prohibited from making campaign contributions.

Money in campaigns are dangerous. This idea that teachers unions pose some risk that all these other organizations don't is just ludicrous. In the state I live in there was a hotly contested issue regarding the privatization of prisons and of course...they donated millions to the individuals that were pushing the legislation.

I haven't said anything about risk at all. I'm talking about conflicts of interest.

Elected officials are required to make impartial decisions for their constituents. That partiality becomes compromised when there is a clear financial interest in these decisions for the official.
 
The reason they should get higher paid is because they have to endure much worse conditions. Its like asking why a Gastroenterolog should be paid more than an average specialist. It is because they have to deal with the digestive system.

Wages should be based on demand, not by what we think they deserve. I don't support the current system, and yes I am in favour of performance wages as well, but not a standard for all schools in America. Each school should be allowed to determine how much they give in performance salary.

Conditions might be different but I don't think they're any worse in less affluent neighborhoods.

In my experience, friends who are teachers almost unanimously agree teaching in more affluent neighborhoods is more difficult because the parents are so involved. Drawbacks to the less affluent neighborhoods tend to involve less desirable places to eat lunch, etc.
 
Conditions might be different but I don't think they're any worse in less affluent neighborhoods.

In my experience, friends who are teachers almost unanimously agree teaching in more affluent neighborhoods is more difficult because the parents are so involved. Drawbacks to the less affluent neighborhoods tend to involve less desirable places to eat lunch, etc.

Well, a lot of people disagree with you, and that makes it harder to find teachers for poor areas. Based on demand, they should get a higher wage. I don't feel having parents involved is big problem. I want them to be involved. However, I disagree with you on lunch , I prefer the food in the poorer areas.

As you disagree then you can take a job in a ghetto school and get a higher wage. Today you can not.

Wages should be based on the market demand, not what we think they deserve.
 
Because private sector pays for public sector. It is only fair to expect public salaries to be based on market demand.

Another problem in Chicago is that they all receive the same wage, no matter if they teach on a good school or a really bad one. What should be done is to reduce wages in schools in rich areas.

A race to the bottom. Hope you win that race to the bottom in your job. ;)

btw - I workd in the public sector and I help pay for the public sector. So your snap answer broke in pieces.
 
A race to the bottom. Hope you win that race to the bottom in your job. ;)
There is no such thing. Lower wages will lead to to lower costs, and higher wages will lead to higher costs.

If you want evidence look at Greece and how rich they are now. Before the crisis, wages in public sector was pretty comfortable. That did not lead to high private sector wages, instead it lead to a fiscal crisis that is dragging everyone down.

btw - I workd in the public sector and I help pay for the public sector. So your snap answer broke in pieces.
No you don't. If you work in public sector, then you are paying for the public sector. Rather, the public is paying you for doing a job. Yes you have to return some of the money, but if I give you 100 USD, and then take 30 USD back, then you are not paying me. (with the exception if you had an additional private sector job)
 
Yes I do. I pay taxes just like everyone else who works.
 
Let me get this straight. Chicago public school teachers make $75K/year on average, work a five hour day, have summers off, cadillac health benefits and guaranteed, defined pensions, and they think they should be paid more than that if they work a 7 hour work day, and that their positions shouldn't be evaluated individually for performance and subject to pay increases based on merit?

If I have that correct, they have got to be effing kidding me.
 
Let me get this straight. Chicago public school teachers make $75K/year on average, work a five hour day, have summers off, cadillac health benefits and guaranteed, defined pensions, and they think they should be paid more than that if they work a 7 hour work day?

If that is correct, they have got to be effing kidding me.

That's pretty close.
 
I wonder what Obama thinks about the strike.
 
A race to the bottom. Hope you win that race to the bottom in your job. ;)

btw - I workd in the public sector and I help pay for the public sector. So your snap answer broke in pieces.

Actually you don't considering you're just giving back some of the money paid you by the public. Though I guess fairly you could make that assertion since you are providing a rebate (IF you actually pay state/federal income taxes, not everyone does).
 
IMO, no one, in any occupation, should be allowed to strike, ever, under any circumstance. If they walk out on their job, they should be fired. If you're unhappy with your current job, or your current pay/benefits/hours, etc., find a new job that's to your liking.
 
IMO, no one, in any occupation, should be allowed to strike, ever, under any circumstance. If they walk out on their job, they should be fired. If you're unhappy with your current job, or your current pay/benefits/hours, etc., find a new job.

I have no problem with unions in the private sector. In the private sector, politics don't come into play. You have two sides negotiating at arm's length spending -- or not​ spending -- the company's money. What's unfair about that? Nothing, in my opinion.

In the public sector, you have two sides negotiating within the political arena spending taxpayers' money. Political pressures make negotiating at arm's length impossible from the "management side."
 
I have no problem with unions in the private sector. In the private sector, politics don't come into play. You have two sides negotiating at arm's length spending -- or not​ spending -- the company's money. What's unfair about that? Nothing, in my opinion.

In the public sector, you have two sides negotiating within the political arena spending taxpayers' money. Political pressures make negotiating at arm's length impossible from the "management side."

Public sector unions should be illegal everywhere, there's no doubt about it.

I have no problem with private sector unions, but I don't think they should be allowed to strike. No one should be allowed to skip out on work for days, weeks or months in a strike, and still be able to keep their job. There are too many people out there who would be happy to take those jobs permanently to allow that to happen.
 
I have a problem with unions even in the private sector. If something about the workers needs to be protected, the government (state, federal or local) should be doing it, that's their job. If workplace safety is needed, it should be legislated. Unions add another layer of corruption and graft to the system.
 
I have no problem with unions in the private sector. In the private sector, politics don't come into play. You have two sides negotiating at arm's length spending -- or not​ spending -- the company's money. What's unfair about that? Nothing, in my opinion.

In the public sector, you have two sides negotiating within the political arena spending taxpayers' money. Political pressures make negotiating at arm's length impossible from the "management side."

This is dead on.
 
Public sector unions should be illegal everywhere, there's no doubt about it.

I have no problem with private sector unions, but I don't think they should be allowed to strike. No one should be allowed to skip out on work for days, weeks or months in a strike, and still be able to keep their job. There are too many people out there who would be happy to take those jobs permanently to allow that to happen.

I think private sector unions go on strike, truly, only as a last resort -- because it's costing them money out of their pockets. A teachers' strike as an example? Costs teachers nothing. They're going to have to make up all those days and, of course, they'll be paid for them.
 
I think private sector unions go on strike, truly, only as a last resort -- because it's costing them money out of their pockets. A teachers' strike as an example? Costs teachers nothing. They're going to have to make up all those days and, of course, they'll be paid for them.

I agree with you. But, even in the private sector, if employees strike (walk out on their jobs), they shouldn't be able to just go right back into their job when the strike ends. They should be terminated, or it should be considered voluntary resignation.
 
If teachers are supposed to be college educated professionals, why the need for a teachers union and the use of strikes as a bargaining tool? Doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, etc., are professionals and don't seem to have a problem without a labor union, and when's the last time we ever heard of those professionals going on strike?
 
It's being said that you are a teacher. So, how much do you make, and are you making twice what people in your town make?

I make a good amount of money, but it's not quite double the average in my town. I do, however, know teachers living in a very low income small town who make over $65,000 - $70,000. That's at least double the average income in the town.
 
I make a good amount of money, but it's not quite double the average in my town. I do, however, know teachers living in a very low income small town who make over $65,000 - $70,000. That's at least double the average income in the town.

eeehhhh; sorry. That doesn't quite qualify as an answer. And without a source, your salary assertions don't carry much weight.
 
Back
Top Bottom